SUMMONS TO THE MEETING of the COUNCIL

When: 7.30pm Wednesday 23 October 2019

Where: Council Chamber Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ

Sharon Bridglalsingh Director Law and Governance

Public Questions and Petitions The deadline for the submission of public questions and petitions is 7:30 pm on Monday 21 October 2019 and should either be delivered to the address below or sent by email to [email protected]

Public Speaking Persons wishing to speak on an agenda item must give notice by not later than 7:15 pm on the day of the meeting

Enquiries Please contact Simon Heap on 01908 252567 or [email protected]

This agenda is available at https://milton-keynes.cmis.uk.com/milton- keynes/Committees.aspx

Milton Keynes Council, Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ Tel: 01908 691691 (1)

Health and Safety Please take a few moments to familiarise yourself with the nearest available fire exit, indicated by the fire evacuation signs. In the event of an alarm sounding during the meeting you must evacuate the building immediately and follow all instructions provided by the fire evacuation officer who will identify themselves should the alarm sound. You will be assisted to the nearest designated assembly point until it is safe to return to the building. Mobile Phones Please ensure that your mobile phone is switched to silent or is switched off completely during the meeting. Agenda Agendas and reports for the majority of the Council’s public meetings can be accessed at: http://milton-keynes.cmis.uk.com/milton-keynes/ WiFi access is available in all Civic meeting rooms. Recording of Meetings The proceedings at this meeting may be recorded for the purpose of preparing the minutes of the meeting. In accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, you can film, photograph, record or use social media at any Council meetings that are open to the public. If you are reporting the proceedings, please respect other members of the public at the meeting who do not want to be filmed. You should also not conduct the reporting so that it disrupts the good order and conduct of the meeting. While you do not need permission, you can contact the Council’s staff in advance of the meeting to discuss facilities for reporting the proceedings and a contact is included on the front of the agenda, or you can liaise with staff at the meeting. The Government’s Guidance can be viewed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3431 82/140812_Openness_Guide.pdf Comments, Complaints and Compliments Milton Keynes Council welcomes feedback from members of the public in order to make its services as efficient and effective as possible. We would appreciate any suggestions regarding the usefulness of the paperwork for this meeting, or the conduct of the meeting you have attended. Please email your comments to meetings@milton- keynes.gov.uk If you require a response please leave contact details, ideally including an email address. A formal complaints / compliments form is available at http://www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/complaints/

(2) AGENDA Item No: 1. Procedure (a) Apologies (b) Minutes To approve, and the Mayor to sign as a correct record, the Minutes of the special meeting of the Council held on 18 September 2019 (Item 1[a]) (Page 8) and of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 18 September 2019 (Item 1[b]) (Pages 9 to 28) (c) Disclosure of Interests Councillors to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or personal interests (including other pecuniary interests), they may have in the business to be transacted, and officers to disclose any interests they may have in any contract to be considered. (d) Announcements To receive any announcements. 2. Public Involvement (a) Petitions Any petitions received by the deadline of 7:30 pm on Monday 21 October 2019 will be reported at the meeting. (b) Questions from Members of the Public To receive questions and provide answers to questions received from members of the public by the deadline of 7:30 pm on Monday 21 October 2019. 3. Business Remaining from Last Meeting None 4. Reports from Cabinet and Committees (a) Regulatory Committee – 11 September 2019

Review of Fees and Charges for Regulatory Services “That the proposed fees and charges, outlined in the Annex to the report, be endorsed and recommended to Council for adoption.” A copy of the report considered by the Committee is attached at Item 4(a) (Pages 29 to 34).

(3) (b) Cabinet – 1 October 2019

Making the Neighbourhood Plan “That the Council be recommended to make the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 38(A)(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.” A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet is attached at Item 4(b) (Pages 35 to 41). 5. Councillors’ Matters (a) Councillors’ Questions Councillors to ask questions of the Leader, a Cabinet Member, the Chair of any Committee, or the Leader of a Political Group on the Council. (b) Notices of Motions: (i) Biodiversity Councillor Gilbert – 4 October 2019 “That this Council: 1. celebrates the rich variety of wildlife across Milton Keynes, including in woodlands, hedgerows, grazing pastures and meadows; ponds, lakes, rivers, canals and streams; parks and private gardens; and grid corridors; 2. notes with alarm the latest State of Nature report, which shows that more species have shown strong or moderate decreases in abundance (41%) than increases (26%) since 1970, but welcomes findings that increased public conservation efforts could help secure a brighter future for nature; 3. further welcomes the numerous recent examples of UK leadership on the environment, being the first G7 country to commit to a legally binding net-zero target; the introduction of charges for plastic carrier bags; the ban on microbeads and ivory sales; increasing maximum sentences for animal cruelty; and the Government's commitment to double investment to help developing countries address climate change and species loss; 4. affirms its commitment to protecting and promoting biodiversity in Milton Keynes, pledging to leave our natural environment in a better state than we found it;

(4) 5. recognises that efforts by citizens can help improve the chances of particular species, with the recent State of Britain's Hedgehogs report suggesting that decades of decline could be levelling off in some urban areas, despite ongoing pressure in the countryside; 6. requests the Cabinet to accelerate development of a local biodiversity strategy, and asks that this strategy covers: (a) A borough-wide action plan to transform Milton Keynes into a Hedgehog Haven, with joint efforts to create a network of Hedgehog Highways; (b) Action to promote habitats for bees and other pollinators, including the identification of suitable wild flower sites; (c) Action to raise public awareness of biodiversity issues and create opportunities for citizens of all ages to enjoy and promote wildlife locally; (d) Proposals for maximising biodiversity net gains in the planning system; (e) Alignment with a wide range of local partners including, but not limited to, Parish Councils, the Natural Environment Partnership, The Parks Trust, Schools and Colleges; and (f) A robust risk register for locally threatened species; 7. requests an update at the next Full Council on delivery of the above and quarterly thereafter.” (ii) Shenley Park Development Proposals Councillor Brown – 9 October 2019 “1. That this Council notes that: (a) The draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) was submitted in October 2017 and included no provision for housing allocations on the border of Milton Keynes. However, in August 2018 the Planning Inspector published his interim findings including “A modification to the plan is required to redress the balance, by increasing the allocations in close proximity to Milton Keynes”

(5) (b) in its schedule of proposed modifications published in July 2019, Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) is proposing to allocate land to the immediate east of Kingsmead and Tattenhoe Park on the historic land of Whaddon Chase, and that Crest Nicholson are promoting this site for a development up to the size of 1,800 homes; and (c) consultation of the proposed modifications is expected to take place later in 2019. 2. That this Council further notes that: (a) Milton Keynes Council has affirmed its commitment to plan-led rather than developer-led development by passing Plan:MK in March 2019 and securing a five-year land supply; (b) the commitment and expectation of Milton Keynes Council to plan-led development extends beyond its borders; and (c) Milton Keynes Council has an agreed policy for urban extensions on the border of Milton Keynes, defined in Policy SD15 of Plan:MK, including provisions for integration with Milton Keynes (including the grid system, Redways and linear parks), sustainable development, exploring park and ride sites and establishing mechanisms to ensure appropriate planning gain is used within Milton Keynes. 3. That this Council: (a) expresses concern that Shenley Park, or any of the other possible allocations may have a negative potential impact on Milton Keynes; (b) expresses concern that the allocations have been brought up only towards the end of the plan-making process, meaning that community engagement on these sites has been minimal; (c) expresses concern that ward councillors and parish councils were unaware of these proposals and asks the Cabinet to look at their protocol for informing and consulting ward and parish councillors when neighbouring authorities come forward with development proposals;

(6) (d) believes that the development could place unacceptable strain on the infrastructure and services in Milton Keynes including on highways and transport infrastructure, quality public open space, GP services and school provision; (e) notes that the development proposals lack any conformity or integration with the surrounding and adjoining infrastructure of Milton Keynes; and (f) notes that as Shenley Park would likely be regarded informally and geographically as part of Milton Keynes, but falls outside the administrative boundaries of Milton Keynes Council so any planning decisions and future income would not fall to Milton Keynes Council. 4. That this Council resolves to: (a) oppose any allocation that does not meet the tests as agreed in Plan:MK policy SD15 and highlight the negative impact of the proposals on Milton Keynes; (b) call upon AVDC to engage fully with the letter and spirit of Plan:MK policy SD15; (c) request AVDC to consult fully with all local stakeholders and affected parties, including those within Milton Keynes and not just Aylesbury Vale; (d) request that the new Council engages with Milton Keynes Council about the long-term sustainable of extension settlements; (e) request that any urban extension to Milton Keynes within Aylesbury Vale, AVDC, or its successor, adopts the Milton Keynes approach of adopting a Design Brief focussed on good ‘placemaking’, agreed by the local authority, which developers will be expected to conform to, rather than allow a developer-led design, focussed on maximum profit; and (f) highlight that Milton Keynes Council has set the ambitious target to be carbon neutral by 2030 and that as such any development proposals need to prioritise a future rapid transit scheme and consider the impact on green space and biodiversity.

(7)

ITEM 1(a)

Minutes of a SPECIAL MEETING OF MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL held on WEDNESDAY 18 SEPTEMBER 2019 at 7.00 pm

Present: Councillor Crooks (Mayor) Councillors Alexander, Baines, Baume, Bint, Bowyer, Brackenbury, K Bradburn, M Bradburn, R Bradburn, Cannon, Carr, Cryer- Whitehead, Darlington, Exon, Ferrans, P Geary, Gowans, D Hopkins, V Hopkins, Hosking, Khan, Lancaster, Long, Marklew, Marlow, McCall, McLean, McPake, Middleton, Minns, Montague, Nazir, O’Neill, Petchey, Raja, Reilly, Trendall, Walker, Wallis and Williams Aldermen Connor and Howell Apologies: Councillors Akter, Brown, A Geary, Green, Jenkins, Legg, Marland, Miles, Nolan, Priestley, Rankine, Small, Townsend and Wilson and Aldermen Bartlett, Beeley, Bristow, Coventry, Henderson and Alderwomen Irons, Henderson and Lloyd Also Present: 4 members of the public CL53 HONORARY ALDERMAN Pursuant to the powers conferred on the Council by Section 249(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by Section 29 of the Local Government, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009: Councillor Walker moved and Councillor P Geary seconded, that the title of Honorary Alderman be conferred on Andrew Peter Dransfield, in recognition of the eminent service he had rendered to the Council. On being put to the vote, the motion was declared lost with 13 councillors voting in favour, 25 councillors voting against and 3 councillors abstaining from voting.

THE MAYOR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 7:19 PM

18 September 2019 (8)

ITEM 1(b)

Minutes of the MEETING OF MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL held on WEDNESDAY 18 SEPTEMBER 2019 at 7.30 pm Present: Councillor Crooks (Mayor) Councillors Akter, Alexander, Baines, Baume, Bint, Bowyer, Brackenbury, K Bradburn, M Bradburn, R Bradburn, Brown, Cannon, Carr, Cryer-Whitehead, Darlington, Exon, Ferrans, P Geary, Gilbert, Gowans, D Hopkins, V Hopkins, Hosking, Khan, Lancaster, Legg, Long, Marklew, Marlow, McCall, McLean, McPake, Middleton, Miles, Minns, Montague, Nazir, Nolan, O’Neill, Petchey, Raja, Reilly, Townsend, Trendall, Walker, Wales, Wallis, Williams and Wilson Aldermen McKenzie and Howell and Alderwoman Saunders Apologies: Councillors A Geary, Green, Jenkins, Marland, Priestley, Rankine and Small and Aldermen Bartlett, Beeley, Bristow, Coventry, Henderson, and Alderwomen Irons, Henderson and Lloyd CL54 MINUTES RESOLVED - That the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 17 July 2019 be approved and signed by the Mayor as a correct record. CL55 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS Councillor Cryer-Whitehead advised the Council, in respect of Item 5(b)(i), Regeneration:MK, that she was a resident of Fullers Slade, which was one of the areas designated for regeneration. CL56 ANNOUNCEMENTS (a) Armed Forces Covenant The Mayor announced that that the Council had been awarded Silver Status in the Defence Employer Recognition Scheme and that Councillor Baines, the Council’s Armed Forces Champion, had been presented with the award at a ceremony held on HMS Victory in .

18 September 2019 (9) The Mayor commended both Councillor Baines and Johanna Hrycak, the Council’s Armed Forces Covenant Project Manager on the amount of work they have put into the Council receiving this recognition. (b) Corporate Parenting Week 22-28 October 2019 The Mayor announced that Corporate Parenting Week would taking place between 22-28 October 2019 and that the aim of the Week was to raise awareness about what it meant to be a corporate parent and the responsibilities that were placed upon the Council in respect of children in care and care leavers. The Mayor informed the Council that Corporate Parenting Week would be launched in the Council Chamber on 22 October with an event featuring children from care speaking to a range of stakeholders about their care, Curriculum Vitae and the challenges that they faced. During the week there would be opportunities to meet with the children and make individual pledges of support, such as mentoring. There would also be two events celebrating the achievements of children in care – ‘True Triumph’. If councillors wanted to become involved or could offer an opportunity to a young person, they should contact Councillor Nolan (Cabinet member for Children and Families); Councillor Miles (Chair of the Corporate Parenting Panel), or Mac Heath (Director of Children’s Services). (c) Festival of Creative Urban Living The Mayor announced that Milton Keynes was hosting the first ever ‘Festival of Creative Urban Living’ from 26 September to 13 October. The Festival which would be held on Midsummer Boulevard would bring together local people, artists, architects, designers, urban planners, thinkers and creatives for a free programme of exhibitions, events, creative workshops, performances and much more.

18 September 2019 (10) (d) Councillor Montague The Mayor congratulated Councillor Montague and his wife Florence on the recent birth of their daughter. CL57 PETITION - 20 MPH SPEED LIMIT - THEYDON AVENUE, The Council received a petition, which was presented by Councillor D Hopkins, requesting a 20 mph speed limit in Theydon Avenue, Woburn Sands. Councillor Darlington confirmed the request would be taken forward for potential inclusion in the 2020/21 works programme, when it would be assessed by the Council’s Highway Engineers as to its suitability of the reduced speed limit, including consultation with local residents. CL58 PETITION - TRAFFIC SURVEY - BROAD STREET, The Council received a petition, which was presented by Councillor Carr, requesting a Traffic Survey in Broad Street, Newport Pagnell. Councillor Darlington undertook to request officer colleagues to undertake the requested survey and present the results to residents along with recommendations on a way forward to address their concerns. CL59 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (a) Question from David Mortimer to Councillor Marland (Leader of the Council) David Mortimer, referring to his concerns about the rollout of 5G in Milton Keynes, given the potential adverse biological effects of radiofrequency radiation, asked the Council to introduce the precautionary principle, given that the internationally-accepted guidelines from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection only considers the thermal and not the biological effects. Councillor Marland, in a written answer, indicated that in England responsibility for radiological protection (including non-ionising radiation i.e. electromagnetic fields) currently lay with Public Health England.

18 September 2019 (11) The technology was being rolled out with Government support. As the “precautionary principle” was wider than Milton Keynes and it was the Government that was championing the project and simplifying planning requirements to implement it, responsibility was thought to lie at a national level. Under permitted development planning authorities could only assess telecoms apparatus schemes under limited criteria (namely siting and appearance), and even under a planning application such matters were not covered by local or national planning policy. Operators needed to carry out development in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. Sometimes as good practice operators add relevant certification to accompany their applications, but it was not a requirement in planning terms. There was currently a national consultation on new Permitted Development Rights Regulations until November, so the most appropriate way to raise such concerns could be by representation during that process. David Mortimer, as a supplementary question, asked for clarification of whether the Council was aware that radiofrequency radiation was classified as a pollutant and that Milton Keynes Council had a duty to protect its constituents from such a known pollutant. Councillor Marland, in a written answer, indicated that operators needed to carry out development in accordance with the Electronic Communications Code and the Environmental Protection Act. Sometimes, as good practice, operators added relevant certification to accompany their applications, but it was not a requirement in planning terms. The Council was aware of the debate on radiofrequency radiation as a potential pollutant and health hazard. The assessment of these risks falls within the remit of Public Health England. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) was the expert committee which advised all Government departments and agencies on the health effects of natural and man-made radiation, both ionising and non-ionising. Local government would follow guidance issued by Central Government partners.

18 September 2019 (12) (b) Question from David Lee to Councillor Long (Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration) David Lee, referring to the Cabinet’s approval of terms for the ballot of residents of Serpentine Court in October 2018 and the Cabinet’s reaffirmation in January 2018 that “All options available will be financially deliverable i.e. they can be delivered through the HRA, Council borrowing or private funding" asked Councillor Long to confirm that the same would be true for the Fullers Slade ballot, or to state that some options would not be financially deliverable and that they would not be included in the ballot. Councillor Long indicated that all options which were likely to be included in the ballot would be both viable and provide value for money and one option was likely to increase the availability of affordable housing. Following a workshop held earlier in the week with the Residents Steering Group three financially deliverable options had been agreed and were currently being finalised. David Lee, noting that previously four options were being considered, asked Councillor Long, as a supplementary question, which of the options was being dropped Councillor Long indicated that the final options were only agreed yesterday and there was to be a joint statement from the Residents’ Steering Group and the Council, so he was unable to say which options would be going forward at this time. (c) Shenley Park Development, question from Residents to Councillor Gowans (Cabinet member for Planning and Transport) (i) Question from Russell Dixon Russell Dixon, in a written question, asked Councillor Gowans: 1. if he thought developers should use up to date plans / aerial photographs which showed the recent developments to the South of Kingsmead: Shakespeare Park, The Oaks and Salden Chase; 2. if developers were obliged to build to Plan MK principles and the planning policies adopted by Milton Keynes Council;

18 September 2019 (13) 3. if the Council’s Planning Rules required housing estate to be hidden from the main roads; 4. if he was aware of what provisions were to be made for sports and youth facilities as there could be potentially 2000 to 3000 children; 5. if compensation for any loss of value would be offered to those house owners living directly on ‘The Green’ in Oxley Park, if all of the social housing and lower price range housing in the prospective new development was to be situated along the main Boulevard opposite ‘The Green’; 6. if he was aware of whether it was planned to include a secondary school as part of prospective new development; 7. will children living on the prospective new development be allowed to attend schools in Milton Keynes; 8. how would the increased burden on services provided by Milton Keynes Council be funded as Council Tax from the prospective new development would go to Aylesbury Vale District Council; 9. if he was aware if it was planned to include a doctors’ surgery as part of the prospective new development; 10. if there was a potential for ‘rat runs’ to be created both between the A421 and the H6 through Shenley Park and also along Harlow Crescent, Oxley Park; 11. if a new access road through mature trees, the Swans Way bridle path and a main fuel and gas pipeline would be allowed; 12. how would the additional traffic created by the prospective new development be dealt with and what traffic calming measures would there be; 13. if there would be an up to date traffic plan; 14. if there would be a be a bus route along new Road through ‘The Green’; and

18 September 2019 (14) 15. if the green area at the top of Harlow Crescent was to be removed. (ii) Question from Paul Kennington Paul Kennington, referring to the prospective new ‘Shenley Park’ development on the Council’s boundary at Oxley Park and Kingsmead, asked Councillor Gowans for his view of the intention of the developers to connect the development by a road from the A421 to Childs Way directly across the only reasonably sized open green recreational space in this part of Oxley Park and Kingsmead, which would potentially have significant effects on this area and Milton Keynes as a whole. (iii) Question from Sarah Waby Sarah Waby asked Councillor Gowans: 1. what was the Council’s standpoint on the overall development and the suggestion of expanding the grid system into Aylesbury Vale District; 2. what was the long term plan for Milton Keynes in the west of the borough and was the Council considering extending the H6, or did the Council instead support protecting Kingsmead Green; 3. how did the prospective new development fit with the Local Transport Plan; 4. had any consideration been given to any impact on the air quality for the children attending Oxley Park Academy; 5. if the Council was aware of the financial arrangement referred to at the Whaddon Parish Council meeting; 6. why the site was being considered when, in her view, Eaton Leys was far more suitable for infrastructure and further development; 7. what traffic studies had been completed to assess the suitability of H6, V1 and surrounding roads for of the potential increase of traffic, both from the prospective new development and the expansion of existing developments in Milton Keynes; and

18 September 2019 (15) 8. what studies had been undertaken on the potential impact of the prospective new development on existing facilities in Milton Keynes and the future plans for Milton Keynes. (iv) Question from Nicholas Cadman Nicholas Cadman asked Councillor Gowans to oppose in the strongest possible terms the proposal that Saltwood Avenue would become an extension of the H6 grid road connecting the H6 with the A421. (v) Question from Edith Bald Edith Bald, referring to the prospective new ‘Shenley Park’ development asked Councillor Gowans if he believed that Aylesbury Vale District Council had failed in its statutory duty to cooperate with Milton Keynes Council on these proposals or whether Milton Keynes Council had been consulted, but had decided to keep both ward councillors and parish councils in the dark. Councillor Gowans indicated that Aylesbury Vale District Council had submitted its Local Plan to the Secretary of State on 28 February 2018. A planning inspector then undertook an examination of the plan and held a number of hearing sessions in July, which included consideration of the level of housing growth that would need to be provided in Aylesbury Vale by 2033. As part of the examination in public of the Local Plan, the Planning Inspector, in his interim findings, outlined additional housing growth needed to be identified within the Plan. He also highlighted that the distribution of growth in the north of the district would lead to increased lengths of commuting flows to and from Milton Keynes. As a result the Inspector concluded that a modification was required to amend the distribution of housing growth “by increasing allocations in close proximity to Milton Keynes.” Following consideration of the inspector’s interim findings, Aylesbury Vale District Council published a range of suggested modifications, which included an increase to the level of housing growth, from 2,212 to 3,362 dwellings on sites in the north east of Aylesbury Vale. However, these were not the inspector’s formally recommended modifications and had not been published for consultation.

18 September 2019 (16) Discussions had taken place between planning officers from Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes Councils, focused on establishing the evidence would be available to assess any additional growth options around Milton Keynes. At this stage the Council had not come to any decision on the merits of the Inspector’s interim findings, the level of growth now being proposed, or any of the sites that were being assessed by Aylesbury Vale District Council. Councillor Gowans also indicated that it was understood that a public consultation on the modifications was likely to be undertaken over October and November and Milton Keynes Council expected Aylesbury Vale District Council to proactively consult with all communities, including those within Milton Keynes, which could potentially be impacted. The Council was of the belief that it was critically important that everyone had the opportunity to express their views on these very significant changes to Aylesbury Vale District Council’s Plan. Milton Keynes Council would consider the implications of any proposed modification that would allocate new housing growth adjacent to its boundaries and respond to the consultation accordingly. This included the potential impact on the surrounding highway network, as well as the provision of services and facilities. When the Council adopted Plan:MK it set out a policy (SD15) to establish a wide range of place-making principles that should be followed for sustainable urban extensions in adjacent local authorities. This recognised that “development proposals on the edge of Milton Keynes were likely to have significant impacts upon the infrastructure and services of Milton Keynes”. Therefore, it would be expected that relevant proposed sites within Aylesbury Vale would meet the guiding principles set out in this policy. Councillor Gowans reminded the meeting that ultimately this was a matter for Aylesbury Vale District Council and any questions on the actual development, or challenges as to the legality of that Council’s actions should be addressed to Aylesbury Vale District Council.

18 September 2019 (17) (i) Supplementary question from Paul Kennington Paul Kennington asked Councillor Gowans how much did the Council know about the prospective new ‘Shenley Park’ development and was the Council for or against it and whether he agreed that it was appalling that someone who lived 25 yards from the prospective development discovered it by accident. Councillor Gowans indicated that ultimately it was for Aylesbury Vale District Council to publicise its plans. (ii) Supplementary question from Sarah Waby Sarah Waby asked Councillor Gowans who would make the decisions with regard to the highways serving the potential development and what measures could be taken to protect Kingsmead Green. Sarah Waby also referred to the lack of information being provided to existing residents. Councillor Gowans indicated that, he found it shocking how residents had found out about the prospective development. With regard to highways, this Council would seek to apply its policies on highways within Milton Keynes. (iii) Supplementary question from Nicholas Cadman Nicholas Cadman asked Councillor Gowans if he would work with residents to oppose the prospective development. Councillor Gowans indicated that, in the first instance the Council needed to establish an evidential base, it would also be making the strongest possible advances to Aylesbury Vale District Council to ensure that residents, not only those in Aylesbury Vale, but those in adjoining areas were fully engaged with the process. Councillor Gowans stated that the Council would do what it could to support its residents and would do what it could to ensure that any development on the boundary with Milton Keynes would be appropriate.

18 September 2019 (18) (iv) Supplementary question from Edith Bald Edith Bald asked Councillor Gowans if the Council had been consulted on the alternative sites considered by Aylesbury Vale District Council at Eaton Leys and an extension of Salden Chase. Councillor Gowans indicated that he would reply in writing as to exactly how the process works. CL60 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE 2018/19 The Council received the Audit Committee’s Annual Report which was presented by Councillor Cannon, Chair of the Audit Committee. CL61 COUNCILLORS’ QUESTIONS (a) Question from Councillor Lancaster to Councillor Gowans (Cabinet member for Highways and Transport) Councillor Lancaster, referring to the prospective new ‘Shenley Park’ development, the strength of feeling amongst local residents, the impact on the residents and Milton Keynes in general and that ward councillors and parish councillors had not been informed, asked Councillor Gowans if the Council would support Tattenhoe Ward councillors in preparing a case to object to the development when it came forward. Councillor Gowans indicated that he had outlined in his previous answers the amount of work the Council needed to do to get to an evidential base to respond to any future consultation. Councillor Gowans expressed the view that he found it shocking that Aylesbury Vale District Council had been able to suddenly put this prospective development on residents with a short consultation period ahead and leave it at that. The Council would be ensuring it got all of the information from Aylesbury Vale District Council as best it could and seek to influence Aylesbury Vale District Council to consult properly with the communities in Milton Keynes, rather than just those within it. As a supplementary question, Councillor Lancaster asked Councillor Gowans, even if the Council was unable to stop the development, whether it was possible for the Council to prevent or minimise the impact on existing developments and

18 September 2019 (19) surrounding roads, especially down Saltwood Avenue so that it did not become a link road between the prospective new development and Milton Keynes. Councillor Gowans indicated that the ward councillors are right to campaign on this issue. With regard to Saltwood Avenue and other surrounding roads the Council needed to make sure that whatever was proposed was appropriate for Milton Keynes and not just wave it through because it made it easy for Aylesbury Vale District Council. Councillor Gowans also indicated that Councillor Lancaster had his full support and stated that whatever came to Milton Keynes Council would be properly assessed through the development management protocols against the Council’s high standards. (b) Question from Councillor Trendall to Councillor Darlington (Cabinet member for Public Realm) Councillor Trendall, referring to the reinstatement of the children’s play area at the bottom of Turnmill Avenue, Springfield, asked Councillor Darlington if it was also possible for a rubbish bin to be installed. Councillor Darlington indicated that she would. As a supplementary question, Councillor Trendall asked Councillor Darlington if in future the Council would undertake to provide a rubbish bin at the Council’s new or refurbished play areas. Councillor Darlington indicated that it would, but equally the Council needed to work better with parish and town councils who were now managing many play areas transferred as community related assets to identify the most efficient way of ensuring that bins were emptied. Accordingly technological solutions were being looked at which included ‘smart’ bins. (c) Question from Councillor Marlow to Councillor Darlington (Cabinet member for Public Realm) Councillor Marlow, referring to the issue of traffic movement and poor parking outside Loughton School, asked Councillor Darlington if she (Councillor Darlington) and officer colleagues would meet with herself (Councillor Marlow) at the School to discuss solutions to the potential dangers caused by vehicles and consider possible safer walking to school initiatives.

18 September 2019 (20) Councillor Darlington indicated that she was willing to arrange a meeting with Councillor Marlow. Councillor Darlington also drew attention to the enhanced resources being provided for the School Safety Team which aimed to work more closely with schools, particularly to encourage walking to school by encouraging such initiatives as walking buses, as this would hopefully have both health and safety benefits. (d) Question from Councillor Gilbert to Councillor Darlington (Cabinet member for Public Realm) Councillor Gilbert, referring to the discovery of Milton Keynes pink sacks containing materials for recycling in the Malaysian jungle as highlighted in a recent documentary, asked Councillor Darlington why the report of the independent investigation commissioned by the Council was taking so long to publish. Councillor Darlington indicated that it was her understanding that a briefing was being provided on Friday morning. Councillor Darlington also referred to the Council’s history of being at the forefront of recycling initiatives and how of the councils named in the documentary Milton Keynes Council was the only one to commission an independent investigation. Councillor Darlington informed the Council that she had now seen a draft of the report and it would be issued to the public once other councillors had been briefed, alongside the Council’s response Councillor Gilbert, referring to the time since the report was first promised, asked Councillor Darlington, as a supplementary question, if she accepted the principle that there should be no public comment on an independent report such as this, until such time as the report had been released to all councillors and the public. Councillor Darlington indicated there would be a briefing on Friday and she was trying to be as open and transparent as possible. The report was very thorough, detailed and included a great deal of technical information, which was why it had taken so long to produce. It was hoped that by commissioning such an extensive report it would help the Council maintain the confidence of residents in its recycling collections and processing.

18 September 2019 (21) (e) Question from Councillor McPake to Councillor Gowans (Cabinet member for Highways and Transport) Councillor McPake asked Councillor Gowans if he was aware of the mechanical problems being experienced by the recently introduced replacement trains on the to Bedford line and the resulting problems with punctuality. Councillor Gowans indicated that he would liaise with the operator, London North Western, over the problems with a view to the Company bringing the service up to standard. As a supplementary question, Councillor McPake asked Councillor Gowans to request London North Western Trains to reintroduce some of the old trains until the technical problems with the new trains are rectified. Councillor Gowans indicated that he would. (f) Question from Councillor Wales to Councillor Middleton (Cabinet member for Resources and Innovation) Councillor Wales asked Councillor Middleton to update her on the current state of the plans for the development of a sports facility and nine hole golf course at Windmill Hill Golf Course in Bletchley. Councillor Middleton indicated that the Council was working with the Lawn Tennis Association and a private company on the potential development on the site. The initial plans were being revised following an initial consultation event to try and address the concerns of residents and local parish councils. Councillor Middleton stated that the Council was committed to working with local residents and the parish councils to achieve a mutually acceptable scheme which allowed Milton Keynes to benefit from the considerable amount of investment that was on offer. As a supplementary question, Councillor Wales asked Councillor Middleton to confirm details in writing so that she could accurately inform residents and West Bletchley Council of the current position. Councillor Middleton indicated that he would and also that a further consultation event was planned within the next month.

18 September 2019 (22) (g) Question from Councillor Bint to Councillor Darlington (Cabinet member for Public Realm) Councillor Bint, referring to the installation of a pedestrian crossing on Countess Way, Broughton, as part of City Street remedial works, which was due for completion at the end of the summer, asked Councillor Darlington when she discovered that the work had not been commenced. Councillor Darlington indicated that she had learnt about nine days previous that the works had not been commenced. She understood that the works were to be undertaken by Places for People and they were refusing to commence the works until such time as the Council agreed to adopt a section of the road which had still to be completed. Councillor Darlington reported that she had met with Places for People and agreed a programme for the adoption of the road and the works on the crossing, which were due to commence during the school next half term week. As a supplementary question, Councillor Bint asked Councillor Darlington to investigate where the failure to communicate about the delay had occurred, whether it was as a result of Places for People not telling the Council, or officer colleagues not informing the Cabinet member, ward councillors and residents. Councillor Darlington indicated she would look into the issue of how the delay was, or was not communicated. However, the most important thing was that once she was aware a solution had been agreed and the crossing would be provided as soon as possible. (h) Question from Councillor Ferrans to Councillor Long (Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration) Councillor Ferrans, referring to the regeneration ballot for Serpentine Court and the concerns of some residents that the scheme did for include provision for the public open space at Warren Park, asked Councillor Long if the promised consultation had been carried out and the plans revised to address any concerns of residents arising from the consultations.

18 September 2019 (23) Councillor Long indicated that there had been extensive consultation and as a result the space at Warren Park was being increased, a wildlife area was to be added and, in addition, four new play areas would be created elsewhere on the Lakes Estate. Councillor Long stated that that this showed that regeneration was not just about Serpentine Court and the whole Estate was seeing some benefit. As a supplementary question, Councillor Ferrans asked Councillor Long if she could have sight of the draft plans. Councillor Long agreed. (i) Question from Councillor McLean to Councillor Gowans (Cabinet member for Highways and Transport) Councillor McLean, referring to parking enforcement in Olney, asked Councillor Gowans how many parking enforcement notices needed to be issued to be cost neutral. Councillor Gowans indicated that he was sure that the importance of parking enforcement was recognised and welcomed by all councillors. With regard to the specific question he would provide a written response. (j) Question from Councillor P Geary to Councillor Gowans (Cabinet member for Highways and Transport) Councillor P Geary asked Councillor Gowans if he believed that Aylesbury Vale District Council had fulfilled its statutory duty with regard to the amount of information it had passed to this Council in respect of the prospective new ‘Shenley Park’ development. Councillor Gowans indicated that he would provide a written response which he would include in Councillors’ News. As a supplementary question, Councillor P Geary asked Councillor Gowans, if the Council believed that Aylesbury Vale District Council had not followed its duty to co-operate with this Council, whether the Council would be making representations to the Planning Inspector and if it was found that Aylesbury Vale District Council had not followed its duty to co-operate could he explain why local ward councillors had not been advised. Councillor Gowans indicated that he would include a response to the supplementary question in his written response.

18 September 2019 (24) (k) Question from Councillor Baines to Councillor Long (Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration) Councillor Baines asked Councillor Long when would the Council be fitting ‘Safe by Design’ or similar external doors to Council properties on Downs Barn. Councillor Long indicated that replacement doors, formed part of the Council’s overall Housing Investment Programme and that he would find out when Council properties on Downs Barn were programmed to receive new external doors. As a supplementary question, Councillor Baines asked Councillor Long if he agreed that making homes secure was an important part of bring homes up to a good standard. Councillor Long indicated that he recognised the importance of making homes secure, which was why the Council was planning a considerable investment to replace external doors. CL62 REGENERATION:MK Councillor Walker moved the following motion which was seconded by Councillor P Geary: “That this Council reaffirms its support for the motion it passed unanimously on the 19 September 2018 relating to Regeneration:MK.” The Council heard from one member of the public during its consideration of this matter. On being put to the vote the motion was declared carried with 14 councillors voting in favour, 0 councillors voting against and 36 councillors abstaining from voting. RESOLVED - That this Council reaffirms its support for the motion it passed unanimously on the 19 September 2018 relating to Regeneration:MK. CL63 SUPPORTING EMPLOYEES / CONTRACTORS Councillor Carr moved the following motion which was seconded by Councillor Reilly: “1. That the Council notes with regret the recent death of PC Harper while in service and, two days after, the killing of Belinda Rose, a Social Worker who was undertaking a home visit to a vulnerable adult where she was repeatedly stabbed.

18 September 2019 (25) 2. That the Council recognises the risks faced by the Council’s employees and contractors while undertaking their day to day duties, highlighted by the incidents mention above. 3. That this Council seeks to support all employees and contractors and asks the Cabinet or relevant responsible body to review the Council’s risk management arrangements to ensure that all reasonable measures are in place to safeguard employees and contractors, which could include: (a) providing training for front line staff to ensure employees and contractors have the skill to identify potentially dangerous situations and how to best protect themselves and colleagues; (b) reviewing operating practices to ensure they best protect colleagues; (c) ways to share information about potentially dangerous situations / individuals; (d) encouraging the reporting of incidents so they can be followed up and trended; and (e) ways of sharing best practice.” On being put to the vote the motion was declared carried by acclamation. RESOLVED – 1. That the Council notes with regret the recent death of PC Harper while in service and, two days after, the killing of Belinda Rose, a Social Worker who was undertaking a home visit to a vulnerable adult where she was repeatedly stabbed. 2. That the Council recognises the risks faced by the Council’s employees and contractors while undertaking their day to day duties, highlighted by the incidents mention above. 3. That this Council seeks to support all employees and contractors and asks the Cabinet or relevant responsible body to review the Council’s risk management arrangements to ensure that all reasonable measures are in place to safeguard employees and contractors, which could include:

18 September 2019 (26) (a) providing training for front line staff to ensure employees and contractors have the skill to identify potentially dangerous situations and how to best protect themselves and colleagues; (b) reviewing operating practices to ensure they best protect colleagues; (c) ways to share information about potentially dangerous situations / individuals; (d) encouraging the reporting of incidents so they can be followed up and trended; and (e) ways of sharing best practice. CL64 EXECUTIVE SCHEME OF DELEGATION The Council noted the changes to the Leader’s Scheme of Executive Delegation, which related to the Procurement and Financial Scheme of Delegation which formed an Annex to the Executive Scheme. CL65 SCHEME OF COUNCILLORS' ALLOWANCES 2019-2020 The Council was advised that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had ended the exemption from taxation previously allowed for Civic Allowances has been ended. It was therefore necessary for the Council to amend the Scheme of Councillors' Allowances by removing the following reference to the exemption (Clause 5.3): “As part of a local agreement with HM Inspector of Taxes for Milton Keynes, the above civic allowances are not liable for tax or National Insurance contributions.) The Mayor moved and Councillor Miles seconded “that Clause 5.3 of the Scheme of Councillors' Allowances 2019-2020 be removed”. On being put to the vote the motion was declared carried by acclamation. RESOLVED – That Clause 5.3 of the Scheme of Councillors' Allowances 2019-2020 be removed CL66 MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES The Council received a number of changes to the membership of its committees.

18 September 2019 (27) RESOLVED – That the following changes to the membership of committee be confirmed: (a) Councillor Bowyer to replace Councillor D Hopkins on the Licencing and Regulatory Committees; (b) Councillor Rankine to replace Councillor Nazir on the Regeneration Scrutiny Committee; and (c) Councillor Nazir to replace Councillor Rankine on the Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee. CL67 CONTROLLED PARKING ZONES IN MILTON KEYNES Further to Minute CL31 of the Council’s meeting held on 19 June 2019, the Council noted progress in delivering its resolutions in respect of Controlled Parking Zones in Milton Keynes. With regard to the element of the decision relating to routine publication of patrol times and penalty charge data, Councillor Gilbert clarified that the intention of the original motion was for the total hours spent on enforcement and the number of fixed penalty charge notices issued in a particular period to be published, as a way of reassuring residents that action was being taken. CL68 WARD BASED BUDGETS 2019/20 It was noted that for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 August 2019, applications totalling £4,540 had been approved CL69 QUARTERLY REPORT ON SPECIAL URGENCY DECISIONS The Council noted that, in accordance with Access to Information Procedure Rule 17.4, the Provisions for Special Urgency, as set out in Access to Information Procedure Rule 16, were not used during the period 1 June 2019 to 31 August 2019.

THE MAYOR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 10:34 PM

18 September 2019 (28) ITEM 4(a) MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL 23 OCTOBER 2019 Report considered by the Regulatory Committee on 11 September 2019

REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR REGULATORY SERVICES

Report Sponsor: Neil Allen, Head of Regulatory Services

Author and contact: Adam Ward, Licensing Officer Tel: 01908 252431

Executive Summary:

Milton Keynes Council (“the Council”) levies various fees and charges for a variety of permissions that are granted by the Licensing and Trading Standards teams. A report to the Regulatory Committee in 2018 detailed the changes as to how fees are calculated following the “Hemming” Supreme Court decision resulted in a recommendation that a further review be brought before the Committee in September 2019.

No change to the methodology of how the fees were calculated last year is considered necessary and it is proposed to increase costs by 3% to cover increases in staffing costs and overheads.

The Regulatory permissions that this report applies to are: street trading, sex establishments, scrap metal, animal licensing, tattooing, semi-permanent skin colouring, piercing, electrolysis, acupuncture and hypnotism.

1. Recommendation(s)

1.1 That the proposed fees and charges attached as an Annex to this report be endorsed and recommended to the Council for adoption.

1.2 That an annual review of fees and charges takes place and a report be presented to the Regulatory Committee in September 2020.

2. Issues

2.1 The fees and charges for the Licensing and Trading Standards team that are not set by statute were comprehensively reviewed and considered by the Regulatory Committee in 2017. This followed the land mark ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Hemming (T/A Simply Pleasures) v Westminster City Council which ruled that fees for a licence (unless set under statute) must clearly be separated into two components, the first covering the cost of dealing with the application (i.e. administration) and the second, if permitted by legislation, any costs incurred after the grant of a licence (i.e. enforcement).

2.2 Hemming reaffirmed the established principle that local authorities can only charge such an amount to cover the licensing regime they administer and not to use fees to make a profit or to subsidise other areas. The departments aim is to charge a reasonable amount to ensure full cost recovery for carrying out the processing,

23 October 2019 (29) consideration, determination and granting of the permissions concerned. Where permitted by the relevant legislation, the cost of compliance and enforcement of the respective regime is also to be charged.

2.3 It is open to the Council to charge both the administration fee and the enforcement fee at the time of application (and in the event of an unsuccessful application refund the enforcement fee) or to charge the enforcement fee only when an application is granted. The two costs however must be clearly distinguishable and transparent. Unless required by legislation the team do not refund the administration cost for an unsuccessful application.

2.4 How fees and charges are calculated

2.5 The review carried out in 2017 factored in the administrative costs associated with processing each respective application and includes the time spent by administrative staff, officers and senior officers. The fees include on costs for staff, Head of Service, Legal Democratic Services (committees) and work related to the relevant licensing regime that is not directly linked to individual applications such as the writing and review of policies, materials and postage.

2.6 The fees are proposed to increase by 3% due to the increase in costs of delivering the service to the Council staff costs. Annex A shows the proposed fees broken into administration fee, grant fee (where applicable) and the total combined cost payable if a licence is granted. The current fee is also displayed for reference.

2.7 The work of the team and its cost to the Council will continue to be monitored and reviewed and a further report on the fees and charges will be presented to the Regulatory Committee in 2020.

2.9 Animal Welfare Licences

2.10 The Animal Welfare Regulations came into effect on 1 October 2018 and the service area is still assessing the impact of this. Priority has been given to ensuring affected businesses are licensed correctly and the relevant welfare standards for the protection of animals have been applied. The fees adopted last year were estimates and a full assessment of the fees will be carried out from 1 October 2019 to consider the actual work undertaken along with training costs and system administrations adaptions. Additionally an assessment can be made as to the amount of complaints and enforcement work that was generated and the advice given to businesses affected by the new regulations.

2.11 3% has been added to the current fees pending the review and will either be adjusted in next year’s fees or, if appropriate, a report will come to Committee earlier than this.

23 October 2019 (30) 2.12 Street Trading - Boroughwide Mobile Operators Consent

2.15 A policy amendment before the Committee in September seeks to introduce Borough Wide Mobile Operator Licences in certain circumstances. An additional fee has been introduced and is shown in Annex A. The fee is based on the administration cost of 4 individual licences and the grant fee for each vehicle based on a vehicle operating for more than 5 hours each day. New fees have been introduced for where a new vehicle is added to such a licence or a new employee is named by a street trader that requires the Council to assess the suitability of that person.

3. Options

3.1 The Recommended option

a) That the proposed fees and charges attached at Annex A to this report be endorsed and recommended for adoption by due process.

b) That an annual review of fees and charges takes place and a report be presented to the Regulatory Committee in September 2020.

3.2 Not recommended option

To not endorse the proposed fees and charges and instruct officers to carry out such work on revisions as may be considered necessary.

4. Implications

4.1 Policy The relevant licences are subject to their own Policies which all reference that fees are reviewed regularly by this separate process.

4.2 Resources and Risk N Capital Y Revenue N Accommodation

N IT N Medium Term Plan N Asset Management

4.3 Carbon and Energy Management None

4.4 Legal The charging of the fees is authorised by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (Street Trading, Sex Establishment, Piercing), Hypnotism Act 1952, Animal Welfare Regulations 2018, Scrap Metal Dealer Act 2013.

4.5 Other Implications None – other implications are considered under the respective Policies for each licence type.

23 October 2019 (31) N Equalities/Diversity N Sustainability N Human Rights

N E-Government Y Stakeholders N Crime and Disorder

Background Papers:

Regulatory Committee paper - Review of Fees and Charges - September 2018. Scrap Metal Dealer Act 2013: Guidance on licence fee charges – Home Office Open for business: LGA guidance on locally set license fees 2017

Annex(es): Annex A – Proposed fees and charges for 2020-2021.

23 October 2019 (32) Current Application PROPOSED PROPOSED GRANT Fee Current Grant Fee APPLICATION FEE FEE PROPOSED TOTAL FEE

Sex Establishment Venue - LG(MP)A 1982 New £3,165.00 £225.00 £3,259.95 £231.75 £3,491.70 Renewal £1,205.00 £225.00 £1,241.15 £231.75 £1,472.90 Variation £355.00 - £365.65 £365.65 Transfer £177.00 - £182.31 £182.31

Street Trading LG(MP)A 1982 New / Renewal £480.00 £28 per hour £494.40 £29 per hour £494.40+ Variation £280.00 - £288.40 £288.40 Transfer £142.00 - £146.26 £146.26 Borough Wide Mobile Operator (4 vehicles) N/A £1,977.60 £145 per vehicle 1977.6+ Additional Vehicle (operator consent) N/A £145.00 £145.00 New Employee Notification (revised consent issued) N/A £15.00 £15.00

Scrap Metal Scrap metal dealers act 2013 Scrap metal collector licence - Renewal/New (3years) £470.00 £132.00 £484.10 £135.96 £620.06 Variation (site to collector) £158.00 - £162.74 £162.74 Variation - minor £67.00 - £69.01 £69.01 Scrap metal site licence - New (3years) £493.00 £150.00 £507.79 £154.50 £662.29 Scarp metal site licence - Renewal (3years) £134.00 £150.00 £138.02 £154.50 £292.52 Additional Site £215.00 - £221.45 £221.45 Variation (collector to site) £260.00 - £267.80 £267.80

Hypnotism - Hypnotism act 1952 New £75.00 - £77.25 £77.25

Animal Boarding * Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 Small - New/Renewal £208.00 - £214.24 £214.24 Medium - New/Renewal £283.00 - £291.49 £291.49 Large - New/Renewal £331.00 - £340.93 £340.93 ANNEX A Dangerous Wild Animals (2years) * Animal Welfare Regulations 2018

(33) New/Renewal £261.00 - £268.83 £268.83

Riding Establishments * Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 New/Renewal £334.00 - £344.02 £334.00

Pet Shops * Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 New/Renewal £270.00 £150.00 £278.10 £154.50 £432.60

Zoo * Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 New/Renewal £382.00 - £393.46 £393.46

Breeding of Dogs * Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 New/Renewal £256.00 - £263.68 £263.68

Variation to terms and/or conditions for any animal related licence** £111.00 - £114.33 £114.33

Piercing/ Acupuncture (no expiry) LG(MP)A 1982 New - Premise £195.00 - £200.85 £200.85 New - Person (Acupuncture) £158.00 - £162.74 £162.74 Activity £220.00 - £226.60 £226.60

Special Events Registration 1 - 5 checks £500.00 - £515.00 £515.00 6 - 10 checks £900.00 - £927.00 £927.00 11 - 20 checks £2,000.00 - £2,060.00 £2,060.00 20 + Price on application - Price on application

Pre application advice £75.00 - £77.25 £77.25 Change of address, name, registered address etc. No Fee - No Fee

House to house Collections No Fee - No Fee Street Collections No Fee - No Fee Children in Entertainment No Fee - No Fee Chaperone No Fee - No Fee Children's Work Permit No Fee - No Fee Camping and Caravan Licence No Fee - No Fee

(34) * A veterinary inspection of the premises may be required - this is recharged to the applicant at cost & is not included in the figures above

** Animal related licence includes - Pet Shops, Animal Boarding, Breeding of dogs, Dangerous Wild Animals, Zoo and Riding Establishments ITEM 4(b)

Cabinet report

Report considered b Cabinet on 1 October 2019

MAKING THE HANSLOPE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Name of Cabinet Member Councillor Martin Gowans Planning and Transport

Report sponsor Tracy Darke Director (Growth, Economy & Culture)

Report author David Blandamer Senior Urban Designer [email protected] 01908 254836

Exempt / confidential / not No for publication Council Plan reference Not in Council Plan Wards affected Newport Pagnell North & Hanslope Ward Summary A referendum for The Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan will take place on 26 September. The referendum will ask those voting whether they want Milton Keynes Council to use the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan when deciding planning applications in the neighbourhood area. If the vote is ‘Yes’, the Council would be obliged to make the Plan. This report seeks Cabinet’s agreement, in the event of a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum, to recommend to Council that it makes (brings into legal force) the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan. 1. Decision/s to be made 1.1 Either: Recommendation A. 1. That in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote in the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan Referendum, the Cabinet recommends to Council that it makes the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 38(A)(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

MK Council, Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ (35)

2. That if the Council agrees the recommendation: (a) a decision document (Annex A) setting out the results of the referendum and the Council’s decision to make the plan, and the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan (at Annex B) be published on the Council’s website and in other means, to bring them to the attention of people who live, work or carry out business in the neighbourhood area; and (b) the decision document and details on how to view the plan be sent to the qualifying body (Hanslope Parish Council) and any person who asked to be notified of the decision. OR Recommendation B. That in the event of a ‘No’ vote in the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan Referendum, that: (a) a decision document (Annex A) setting out the results of the referendum and the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan (at Annex B) be published on the Council’s website and in other means, to bring them to the attention of people who live, work or carry out business on the neighbourhood area; and (b) the decision document and details on how to view the plan be sent to the qualifying body (Hanslope Parish Council) and any person who asked to be notified of the decision. 2. Why is the decision needed? 2.1 The Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan was submitted to the Council for examination and was subsequently publicised for a six-week period, ending on 18 January 2019. All comments received were then passed to the Examiner, John Slater, who submitted his report on the Plan in June 2019, stating that the plan met the relevant basic conditions and requirements, subject to modifications, and should proceed to referendum. 2.2 Following the examination, Milton Keynes Council, in consultation with Hanslope Parish Council accepted the examiner’s recommendations and proceeded to make arrangements for a referendum to be held on 26 September 2019. 2.3 In the event of a ‘Yes’ vote, the Council would be obliged under national legislation1 to pass a resolution within eight weeks of the day after the referendum to ‘make’ the neighbourhood plan. Should there be a ‘Yes’ vote in the Plan referendum, a decision to make the Plan by Council on 23 October 2019 would meet that timescale.

MK Council, Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ (36)

2.4 As with any planning decision there is a risk of legal challenge, but that risk has and is being managed by ensuring that the regulations are followed and that the Council’s decision making process is clear and transparent. 3. Implications of the decision 3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan. Neighbourhood Plans should reflect these policies, and neighbourhoods should plan positively to support them. Neighbourhood plans should not promote less development than is set out in the Local Plan, or undermine its strategic policies. The Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan was examined against the strategic policies set out in Plan:MK, adopted in March 2019. 3.2 Once a neighbourhood plan has successfully passed the referendum stage, it comes into force as part of the statutory development plan, meaning it will be a material consideration when considering development proposals in the neighbourhood plan area. 1 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) and Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Regulations 2016 and section 38(A)(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Financial N Human rights, equalities, diversity Y Legal Y Policies or Council Plan Y Communication N Procurement N Energy Efficiency N Workforce N

a) Financial implications The Localism Act 2011 and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”) placed new duties on local planning authorities in relation to neighbourhood planning. These new duties have considerable implications for Council resources. In recognition of the additional burdens that these new duties place on local planning authorities, MHCLG (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) now makes extra burden funding of £20,000 available to local authorities, which can be claimed once a date for a referendum has been set following a successful examination. The Council has received notification of the £20,000 grant and is providing evidence to support the grant being paid over to the council. This is a reduction of £10,000 per plan from that which has been available in previous years. Further duties and deadlines for decisions have been imposed through the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 and Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Regulations 2016, as a result of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

MK Council, Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ (37)

Publicity and officer support costs associated with making neighbourhood plans is met within the Urban Design and Landscape Architecture (UDLA) budget and staff resources to implement the plan come from the existing staff within the Development Plans and Development Management teams. An internal audit of the Neighbourhood Plans Service carried out in 2015 has shown that the additional costs incurred delivering the service was only just covered by the extra burdens funding. b) Legal implications Neighbourhood planning is part of the Government’s initiative to empower local communities to take forward planning proposals at a local level, as outlined in Section 116 of the Localism Act 2011. The Localism Act 2011 and the subsequent regulations confer specific functions on local planning authorities in relation to neighbourhood planning and lay down the steps that must be followed in relation to neighbourhood planning. The Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan has been consulted on in accordance with the 2012 Regulations and subjected to a referendum which will be held in accordance with the Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012. As with any planning decision, there is a risk of legal challenge to the plan and/or judicial review of the Council’s decision to proceed with the referendum and the making of the neighbourhood plan. Risk has been managed by ensuring that the relevant regulations are followed and that the Council’s decision making process is clear and transparent. Once a neighbourhood plan has successfully passed referendum, it comes into force as part of the statutory development plan and the local planning authority is obliged to consider proposals for development against the policies in the Plan. The local planning authority must make the neighbourhood plan within 8 weeks of the successful referendum. In accordance with Regulation 19 of the 2012 Regulations, the Council must, as soon as possible after deciding to make a neighbourhood development plan: (a) publish on the website and in such other manner as is likely to bring the Plan to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area: (i) the decision document, (ii) details of where and when the decision document may be inspected; (b) send a copy of the decision document to: (i) the qualifying body; and (ii) any person who asked to be notified of the decision.

MK Council, Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ (38)

In accordance with Regulation 20 of the 2012 Regulations, the Council must, as soon as possible after making a neighbourhood development plan: a) publish on the website and in such other manner as is likely to bring the decision to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area: (i) the neighbourhood development plan; and (ii) details of where and when the neighbourhood development plan may be inspected; and b) notify any person who asked to be notified of the making of the neighbourhood development plan that it has been made and where it may be inspected. c) Other implications The Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan has been tested against and found to meet the basic conditions required for neighbourhood plans. Two of the basic conditions are the requirements for the plans to:  Contribute to the achievement of sustainable development  Not breach and otherwise be incompatible with EU obligations (including the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives), or any of the Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998). The Examiner’s report has confirmed that the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan meets those basic conditions and officers are satisfied that there are no conflicts with these aspects. The consultations on the draft plan carried out by Hanslope Parish Council and then the publicity on the submitted plan carried out by Milton Keynes Council have helped to raise awareness of its preparation and have allowed community engagement and participation in the process. 4. Alternatives 4.1 In the event of a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum, the Council is obliged to proceed to make the Plan as outlined above. Therefore, there are no options available other than for Cabinet to recommend to the Council to make the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan, and for Council to implement that recommendation, so that the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan becomes part of the Milton Keynes Development Plan. The only exception to this is where the Council considers the plan would breach, or otherwise be incompatible with, any EU obligation or any of the convention Rights. That is not the case here.

MK Council, Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ (39)

4.2 In the event of a ‘No’ vote in the referendum, then no further action is required of the Council in regards to the Neighbourhood Plan other than to publicise the result. Hanslope Parish Council, as the qualifying body responsible for the preparing the plan, would then need to consider its next steps.

List of annexes Annex A – Decision document for making the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan – Annex B – Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan https://www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/hanslope-parish-council-neighbourhood-plan

List of background papers The Localism Act, 2011 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 The Housing and Planning Act, 2016 The Neighbourhood Planning (Referendum) Regulations 2012 Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Regulations 2012 The Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance

MK Council, Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ (40)

ANNEX A MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL HANSLOPE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Decision Statement – 1 October 2019

Summary

Following a referendum of residents eligible to vote within the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan area, Milton Keynes Council will make the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan part of the Milton Keynes Council Development Plan on 23 October 2019.

Background

Hanslope Parish Council, as the qualifying body, successfully applied for its area to be designated a Neighbourhood Area, under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations (2012). The area was designated on 9 December 2015.

The Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan was submitted to the Council for examination and was subsequently publicised for a six-week period, ending on 18 January, 2019. All comments received were then passed to the Examiner, John Slater, who submitted his report on the Plan in June 2019, stating that the plan met relevant basic conditions and requirements and, subject to modifications, should proceed to referendum.

Following the examination, Milton Keynes Council, in consultation with Hanslope Parish Council, accepted the examiner’s recommendations on 20th June 2019 and proceeded to make arrangements for a referendum to be held on 26th September 2019.

The Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan was successful at the referendum held on 26 September 2019. 662 voted ‘Yes’ and 56 ‘No’, turnout was 37.8%. Under the changes to Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, introduced by the Neighbourhood Planning Act, 2017, following the successful referendum the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan came into force as part of the Milton Keynes statutory development plan. The Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan must still be made by the Council within 8 weeks of the referendum.

Decision(s)

1. That the Cabinet recommends to Council that it makes the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan part of the Milton Keynes Council Development Plan. In doing so, the Council is of the opinion that the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan is compatible with all relevant European Union obligations and Convention rights, as incorporated into UK law, and is legally compliant.

(41)